Back
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN, BENCH AT JAIPUR
SUDESH BANSAL, J.
Madan Singh, S/o Shri ASI GD Force No. 880966848, through Wife Poorni Devi W/o Shri Madan Singh - Petitioner
Versus
Director General, Central Reserve Police Force and Anr. – Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5095 of 2025
Decided On : 17-04-2025
(A) Transfer Policy - Clauses 5(A)(c) and 7(vi) - Challenge to transfer order of ASI from Ajmer to Meghalaya - Transfer deemed in violation of policy provisions regarding terminal postings and superannuation - Petitioner’s medical condition and request for voluntary retirement considered. (Paras 4, 8, 10)
(B) Judicial Review - Transfer orders must adhere to established policies and be justified with reasons - Court found the rejection of the petitioner’s representation to be arbitrary and lacking in merit. (Paras 9, 11)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner, with 38 years of service, was transferred shortly before superannuation, despite medical conditions requiring sedentary duties. The transfer was challenged as violating the transfer policy.
Findings of Court:
The transfer order and rejection of representation were quashed, allowing the petitioner to remain at his previous posting for one year.
Issues: Whether the transfer order adhered to the transfer policy and considered the petitioner’s medical condition.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that transfer orders must be justified and adhere to policy provisions, particularly regarding terminal postings and health considerations.
Result: Writ petition allowed.
Order :
(SUDESH BANSAL, J.)
1. With consent of counsel for both parties, writ petition has been heard finally on merits and perused the material available on record.
2. Under challenge is the order of transfer dated 04.02.2025 of petitioner, ASI (GD) from GC-AJM-1, Ajmer to 120-BN, Meghalaya. The representation submitted by the petitioner to revoke/ recall his transfer order has been rejected by the respondents vide order dated 31.03.2025 assigning a single line reason that request of the applicant has not been acceded to by the competent authority being devoid of merits.
3. It has been urged by counsel for petitioner that petitioner during his entire service of 38 years, remained posted in Group Center and for first time in July, 2021, he was given terminal posting at Ajmer, but now when his superannuation is due in the month of June, 2027, i.e., almost after two years, he has been transferred in hilly area.
4. Learned counsel urged that the transfer order of petitioner is in violation of the transfer policy dated 27.09.2022 framed by the respondents. Counsel for petitioner has drawn attention of this Court to the preliminary provision of transfer policy i.e. Sub- Clause (A)(c) of Clause 5 i.e. “Summer Chain Transfer”, to which petitioner belongs, and Sub-Clause (vi) of Clause 7 i.e. “Terminal Posting” which reads as under:-
“5(A)(c). Cases of those who are due for superannuation by 30th June of subsequent year of a particular year of SCT, may be administratively allowed to stay till superannuation.
7(vi). Terminal Posting
The officers/officials/personnel who are due to retire within 2 years to be reckoned from the cut-off date, may be considered for a terminal posting to his place of preference or to the nearby place/station/region covered by overnight journey by train provided he was not posted there in previous tenure.”
5. Counsel for petitioner has urged that petitioner has undergone a by-pass surgery and at present is undergoing medical treatment, as much as, in the annual medical check-up report dated 16.02.2024, made on the instance of respondents, petitioner has been advised to assign Sedentary Duties. The relevant documents including the annual check-up report have been placed on record as Annexure-6.
6. In addition, counsel for petitioner also pointed out that petitioner has already submitted a written application dated 02.12.2024 (Ann-2) that his terminal posting may be extended for a period of one year only, since after one year, he would take voluntary retirement.
7. Counsel appearing on behalf of respondents, though, has not filed reply to the writ petition, but in his verbal arguments, he submits that petitioner is posted in the State of Rajasthan since 30 years and in furtherance to the impugned transfer, petitioner has already been relieved on 06.04.2025. Counsel for respondent has relied upon the judgment passed in case of Union of India Vs. S.L. Abbas [ (1993) 4 SCC 357 ] and prays to dismiss the writ petition.
8. Having adverted to the rival submissions of counsel for both parties, this Court finds that the superannuation of petitioner is due in the month of June, 2027 i.e. nearly after two years and further petitioner has already submitted a written application dated 02.12.2024, expressing his desire for voluntary retirement after a period of one year. Indisputably, petitioner has underwent to by-pass surgery of heart and under continuous medical treatment. In addition as per the annual medical check up report dated 16.02.2024, petitioner has been advised to assign Sedentary Duties.
9. This Court finds that the ground on which the transfer order was requested to be re-considered, have not been appreciated by the respondents and the representation of petitioner has been rejected in a slipshod manner, without application of mind and without assigning any reasons vide order dated 31.03.2025.
10. That apart, the transfer order itself, prima facie, cannot be said to be passed in adherence to the terms of transfer policy, mo
Transfer orders must comply with established policies and consider the health and retirement status of the employee.
A government servant holding a transferable post, neither holds a fundamental nor legal right to remain posted at one place or other.
In matters of transfer, Courts have very limited jurisdiction. Petitioner is also not holding a lowly placed post in organization but is a senior management level officer. Issues of personal difficul....
Transfers of employees nearing retirement must be justified by administrative exigency; otherwise, they are deemed arbitrary and against public policy.
The legal principle established is that the scope for the Writ Court to interfere with an order of transfer is extremely limited, and a transfer order can only be interfered with if issued in violati....
Consideration of impending retirement and balance between administrative exigency and personal inconvenience in transfer orders.
The central legal point established is that transfer orders must adhere to the relevant transfer policy and notifications, and general propositions relating to challenge to a transfer order may not a....
Transfer of government employees is an inherent condition of service, and courts should not interfere unless there is evidence of mala fides or violation of statutory provisions.
The legitimate expectation of an employee, as per the guidelines for posting Non-Gazetted Officers, should be honored, and the employee should be entitled to be posted to one of three places of choic....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
